Appeal No. 2003-0622 Page 3
Application No. 09/974,545
Claims 5, 6, 16, 31, 38, 40, 42, 43, 53 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borthayre ‘842 in view of Auto 737 and RQ-1.
Claims 12, 15, 27, 30, 37, 49 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Borthayre ‘842 in view of Auto 737 and Kirsch.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 12) and the Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 17) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Supplemental Brief (Paper
No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The objective of the appellant’s invention is to defeat an attempt to hijack an
aircraft that is equipped with an automatic pilot by, upon determining that an attempt to
hijack is being perpetrated, deactivating the pilot’s normal on-board flight controls and
on-board control of the autopilot, and then directing the autopilot to fly the aircraft to a
safe landing. The invention is manifested in independent method claim 1 in the
following manner:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007